Tuna can
- Thread starter Dave64
- Start date
I ran a tuna-can most of last year. They work. And I found that there was 2 sweet spots that worked in the adjustment range.
I also found the best tune worked across different types of ammo. As long as the bullet weight was the same. And speeds were close like 1070-1090 range that one tune was good. This could have been because of the skinny tikka t1X barrel?
I also found the best tune worked across different types of ammo. As long as the bullet weight was the same. And speeds were close like 1070-1090 range that one tune was good. This could have been because of the skinny tikka t1X barrel?
Attachments
Last edited:
Jamie, tuners will have several "sweet spots" and should work with other good ammos. Some shooters report that when changing between ammos or lots of ammo they find it necessary to make small adjustments, others say they don't.
Something remains unclear with regard to the chart and what it's supposed to show. The chart is shown in the video when Yannick is discussing the expected four inches of vertical spread at 200 yards.
While it's not known what the distance is on the horizontal axis, the vertical axis is labeled Bullet Drop (Inches) - Each line represents one inch change.
According to the video around the 10:00 mark, the extreme spread for the five shot group at 200 yards was 1014 fps to 1058 fps -- 44 fps.
If the lines on the graph are supposed to show the trajectories of the slowest, fastest, and average rounds as they zero on 200 yards, is it possible for any of these rounds to have a maximum height of only six inches above the line of sight, as shown in the graph? Ballistics calculators show .22LR rounds zeroed at 200 yards in the velocity range allegedly in question will have an apogee (maximum height above the line of sight) closer to 19 - 20.5 inches.
Further, if the zero distance is 200 yards, the greatest distance shown in the graph would appear to be at least 300 yards. At that distance, .22LR rounds with an MV in the range in question would drop 67 to 71 inches.
Does the chart shown in the video (reproduced above) have anything to do with shooting .22LR at 200 yards?
_________________________________
There remains also the question of whether a tuner that will shrink groups at 50 yards will be able to shrink groups at all distances without any adjustments? Is such a thing possible?
A last question at this point is what is meant by the improvements of accuracy claimed in the video? These are important because there can be little doubt that they are the salient feature of this tuner and would be the purpose of most shooters in getting one.
For example, according to the video, with "good ammunition you can expect from 30 to 45 percent better accuracy over not using a tuner." How is this 30 to 45 percent improvement measured? Is it 30 to 45 percent smaller groups? That would mean shrinking 1 MOA groups to .6 to .7 MOA. Is this at 50 yards? 100? 200? A 30 to 45 percent shrinkage of groups with "good ammunition" would be a remarkable achievement at any distance.
The claim for ammo that's less than "good" is broad with Yannick telling viewers "you can get 15 to 65 percent increase in accuracy." In other words, from a little bit of improvement to something that's quite significant. It's a promise that can't fail to deliver.
In general, for both good and not-as-good ammo, how much testing was done to support the claims for accuracy? How reproducible are these results?
These are questions anyone considering a tuner should consider. They can be especially important for shooters who shoot at different distances. There can be little doubt that shooters will wish to consider anything that offers improvement on .22LR accuracy, especially when it comes to long range accuracy improvement because .22LR accuracy grows worse as distance increases.
Something remains unclear with regard to the chart and what it's supposed to show. The chart is shown in the video when Yannick is discussing the expected four inches of vertical spread at 200 yards.
While it's not known what the distance is on the horizontal axis, the vertical axis is labeled Bullet Drop (Inches) - Each line represents one inch change.
According to the video around the 10:00 mark, the extreme spread for the five shot group at 200 yards was 1014 fps to 1058 fps -- 44 fps.
If the lines on the graph are supposed to show the trajectories of the slowest, fastest, and average rounds as they zero on 200 yards, is it possible for any of these rounds to have a maximum height of only six inches above the line of sight, as shown in the graph? Ballistics calculators show .22LR rounds zeroed at 200 yards in the velocity range allegedly in question will have an apogee (maximum height above the line of sight) closer to 19 - 20.5 inches.
Further, if the zero distance is 200 yards, the greatest distance shown in the graph would appear to be at least 300 yards. At that distance, .22LR rounds with an MV in the range in question would drop 67 to 71 inches.
Does the chart shown in the video (reproduced above) have anything to do with shooting .22LR at 200 yards?
_________________________________
There remains also the question of whether a tuner that will shrink groups at 50 yards will be able to shrink groups at all distances without any adjustments? Is such a thing possible?
A last question at this point is what is meant by the improvements of accuracy claimed in the video? These are important because there can be little doubt that they are the salient feature of this tuner and would be the purpose of most shooters in getting one.
For example, according to the video, with "good ammunition you can expect from 30 to 45 percent better accuracy over not using a tuner." How is this 30 to 45 percent improvement measured? Is it 30 to 45 percent smaller groups? That would mean shrinking 1 MOA groups to .6 to .7 MOA. Is this at 50 yards? 100? 200? A 30 to 45 percent shrinkage of groups with "good ammunition" would be a remarkable achievement at any distance.
The claim for ammo that's less than "good" is broad with Yannick telling viewers "you can get 15 to 65 percent increase in accuracy." In other words, from a little bit of improvement to something that's quite significant. It's a promise that can't fail to deliver.
In general, for both good and not-as-good ammo, how much testing was done to support the claims for accuracy? How reproducible are these results?
These are questions anyone considering a tuner should consider. They can be especially important for shooters who shoot at different distances. There can be little doubt that shooters will wish to consider anything that offers improvement on .22LR accuracy, especially when it comes to long range accuracy improvement because .22LR accuracy grows worse as distance increases.
I don't know why you think it is zeroed at 200 yds. At 9:50, when he is talking about drop from the slowest and fastest velocities, he clearly says the drop at 200. Hence he is not zeroed at 200, otherwise there wouldn't be any drop.
In addition, if you assume the vertical lines are every 10 yards, he is zeroed at 120yards. Plugging in those numbers to the Hornady website, I get a apogee of 5.8" at 75yards, which roughly lines up with the graph.
In addition, in the video he says the fastest velocity should have a drop of 41.4inches, but if you look at the last point on the blue line, it is around 25" on the vertical axis. Not sure why, but add this to the odd assumed 120yd zero, and I don't think his screenshot is showing the full graph.
If you want clarification, I suggest sending him a message or leaving a comment on his video.
Considering the whole point of the video, and a barrel tuner, is about making groups smaller, then yes, I think it is quite reasonable to assume the percentage improvement is talking about smaller groups.
And I suspect it was measured with a caliper, but that is just a guess. Also, if he used outside to outside or average distance from center, again you'll have to ask him, but outside to outside is the most likely, not that it really matters.
If you want to see the raw data, might I suggest you contact him?
Fairly certain that should be looked at as three different kinds of ammunition, with the rifle re-zeroed to that same set distance with each. The faster stuff has a flatter flight, while the slower rounds have to be lobbed higher and drop more sharply past the zero distance.
A rifle that magically adjusts the launch angle to compensate for each round's velocity would be a tad too high-tech for most of us!
Normally you don't know where each individual round is relative to the rest in the same box. Trying for the greatest consistency possible comes first. With a centrefire rifle you then tweak your powder charge to get to a "node" where barrel vibration is at its slowest and any remaining variation makes the least difference at the target. With a rimfire you can't do that and instead use a tuner to get to a node.
I thought it would be zeroed at 200 yards because that's the distance he was shooting -- as shown on the under 2" target. But perhaps you're right and for some reason he was zeroed at 120 yards and shot the sub-MOA group on target at 200 yards just the same. According to ballistics calculator, he'd only have to account for about 32.5 to 33" of drop, depending on ammo, by holdover or scope adjustment.
If your assumption that the distance shown on the horizontal axis is indeed 200 yards, the graph in the video shows the POI of the slowest, fastest, and average MV rounds of his five-shot 200 yard group at between 25 and 35 inches below the line of sight -- ten inches of difference between rounds. A ballistics calculator shows that bullets would in fact have a POI separated by only about 2". The actual a drop at 200 with a 120 zero will have a range between about 31.5 and 34" when using either Lapua or Eley ammo, with slightly less with Lapua. In any case, this is not the ten inches shown in the video graph.
As a result the question remains what the graph intends to show.
As noted above, a drop just over 31 to 34" will be seen at 200 if zeroed at 120. Neither a 25" or 41.4" drop would occur.
It would seem as though the graph doesn't match what the video discusses.
What I was getting at has nothing to do with measuring C-to-C or O-to-O. There are different ways to measure accuracy, and group size is one of them.
For more on this, see h ttps://www.shootingsoftware.com/measure.htm.
But let's assume that it is indeed group sizes that are said to be shrinking by 30 to 45 percent. Are such group shrinkages seen at one distance only, or do they apply across the board for all distances, for example, from 50 to 200 yards? For example, if a tuner shrinks a .5" group at 50 yards by 30 to 45 percent to be as small as .275" or as large as .350" -- either one a very significant improvement, it should be noted -- does this apply similarly at 100 yards or more?
More importantly, does the tuner continue to shrink groups at all distances without any further tuner adjustments?
Anyone interested in the claims made in the video should want further information. Why would anyone not wish to see more data rather than less?
The claims are significant. If a tuner shrinks the groups of a good rifle with good ammo by 30 to 45 percent -- what appears to be a notable achievement -- it would seem appropriate that anyone making such a claim would wish to demonstrate the improvement achieved. Indeed, they would insist on showing viewers the proof of what they say.
Instead, there are only the claims made in the video -- without corroborating information. Perhaps they're all true. We don't know. We are asked to trust the words in a video.
What little we do know from the video is that eight to ten different ammos were tested in two different rifles. About 500 rounds were tested. There is no other information offered and no targets to show results. In short there's not a lot on which to base faith that the evidence, such as it is, is conclusive or reliable.
If someone made such a claim on a forum such as this -- namely that if .22LR shooters use a certain device they will shrink their groups by 30 to 45 percent -- there would be at the very least polite requests for some kind of proof before accepting what is claimed. Why is there no evidence at all that can support the claims made?
There are a couple of questions shooters who are looking to improve results in PRS-style shooting might want to keep in mind. Is a 30 - 45 percent shrinkage of groups typical for tuners on good rifles using good .22LR ammo? Do shrinkages that occur with a tuner at 50 yards transfer similarly to further distances without tuner adjustments?
As Alpheus was saying, Yanick says to please leave him questions on the YouTube comments section of the video.
@Grauhanen, you bring up some very valid points. I'll post some targets shortly.
I can't speak for everyone else, but the main reason I have any posted anything yet as I've been too busy testing my new setup. I think I have some fairly decent results, but not exhaustive by any means.
Before we begin, a few notes. This is not going to be a comprehensive treatise on barrel harmonics, so don't take it that way. It's a summary of my personal testing.
I chrono'd about 10 different kinds of 22lr through my Bergara B-14R, factory steel barrel pictured earlier and only selected the top 3 for lot testing based on low SD/ES and a few groups. They included Federal Gold Medal Target, CCI SV, RWS High Velocity Semi-Auto (BBM), SK Std+ (2 different lots), SK Rifle Match, SK Long Range Match, Lapua Center-X, Eley Target (old), Eley Match (Remington packaging).
The top 3 were the Eley Target, SK Rifle Match, and Lapua Center-X, so I guess no real surprises there.
Tuna Can was removed for chrono, so if you see a note in the pictures w/ bayo it means the magnetospeed was on. If you see a note with a T followed by a number on it, that means the Tuna Can was mounted, and the number indicates the position starting from approx 1 rotation from all the way in towards the receiver, progressing out towards the nuzzle in 0.10 increments. 10 increments/revolution of the Tuna Can body.
Also, I am aware this is just a few occasional good groups and a lot more testing is need to determine consistency in all conditions.
This first series of targets was shot indoors at 50 yds. The aiming circles are 0.470" in diameter. Average temperature was 59 Fahrenheit. If there is a group measurement it was made with the Ballistic-X app.
Eley had great numbers but did not group that well. T 0.2 seems to have the best group. Went one full revolution.
Rifle Match did well, and is worth revisiting to see if the results are repeatable. T 0.3 yielded a group worth revisiting.
Center-X showed some promise and also like the setting around T 0.3 (0.524 MOA) which makes sense as the bullets and velocity are close. I didn't do the full range of testing on the Center-X because in my previous experience, the nodes will be similar to the SK Rifle Match results.
I'm going to test in between increments next and fine tune the nodes. Also, I'm going to move testing out to 100, 200, and 300 yards in the next few weeks.
@Grauhanen, you bring up some very valid points. I'll post some targets shortly.
I can't speak for everyone else, but the main reason I have any posted anything yet as I've been too busy testing my new setup. I think I have some fairly decent results, but not exhaustive by any means.
Before we begin, a few notes. This is not going to be a comprehensive treatise on barrel harmonics, so don't take it that way. It's a summary of my personal testing.
I chrono'd about 10 different kinds of 22lr through my Bergara B-14R, factory steel barrel pictured earlier and only selected the top 3 for lot testing based on low SD/ES and a few groups. They included Federal Gold Medal Target, CCI SV, RWS High Velocity Semi-Auto (BBM), SK Std+ (2 different lots), SK Rifle Match, SK Long Range Match, Lapua Center-X, Eley Target (old), Eley Match (Remington packaging).
The top 3 were the Eley Target, SK Rifle Match, and Lapua Center-X, so I guess no real surprises there.
Tuna Can was removed for chrono, so if you see a note in the pictures w/ bayo it means the magnetospeed was on. If you see a note with a T followed by a number on it, that means the Tuna Can was mounted, and the number indicates the position starting from approx 1 rotation from all the way in towards the receiver, progressing out towards the nuzzle in 0.10 increments. 10 increments/revolution of the Tuna Can body.
Also, I am aware this is just a few occasional good groups and a lot more testing is need to determine consistency in all conditions.
This first series of targets was shot indoors at 50 yds. The aiming circles are 0.470" in diameter. Average temperature was 59 Fahrenheit. If there is a group measurement it was made with the Ballistic-X app.
Eley had great numbers but did not group that well. T 0.2 seems to have the best group. Went one full revolution.
Rifle Match did well, and is worth revisiting to see if the results are repeatable. T 0.3 yielded a group worth revisiting.
Center-X showed some promise and also like the setting around T 0.3 (0.524 MOA) which makes sense as the bullets and velocity are close. I didn't do the full range of testing on the Center-X because in my previous experience, the nodes will be similar to the SK Rifle Match results.
I'm going to test in between increments next and fine tune the nodes. Also, I'm going to move testing out to 100, 200, and 300 yards in the next few weeks.
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see an ammo of a certain lot shot without the can and then with the can as its tuned to show exactly what its capable of. Especially with different barrel lengths and profiles. Not really sure it would change the harmonics on an 18" MTU barrel with the mild mannered 22 rimfire. If it can in fact tune the barrel at the high or low of the wave well then its a possibility!! Im not in posession of any equiptment to verify this but smaller groups at varying distances with the same ammo lots seem to be pretty much proof positive that it has merits. Very interesting
I'll probably do something like this when I get my testing completed and I have enough ammo. If you look at my Eley testing page you can see where the Tuna Can was off.
One thing about the stubby 18" Bergara barrel is that it doesn't shift its POI as drastically as my 24" CZ 455 did when attaching either Magnetospeed or Tuna Can.
Last edited:
This is what I'd like to see.
Several groups of the best ammo for a rifle without tuner, then the same with it installed and the best node found.
The video doesn't show on and off for fair comparison, so yes we are taking their word for claims.
Several groups of the best ammo for a rifle without tuner, then the same with it installed and the best node found.
The video doesn't show on and off for fair comparison, so yes we are taking their word for claims.
Jamie, tuners will have several "sweet spots" and should work with other good ammos. Some shooters report that when changing between ammos or lots of ammo they find it necessary to make small adjustments, others say they don't.
Something remains unclear with regard to the chart and what it's supposed to show. The chart is shown in the video when Yannick is discussing the expected four inches of vertical spread at 200 yards.
While it's not known what the distance is on the horizontal axis, the vertical axis is labeled Bullet Drop (Inches) - Each line represents one inch change.
According to the video around the 10:00 mark, the extreme spread for the five shot group at 200 yards was 1014 fps to 1058 fps -- 44 fps.
If the lines on the graph are supposed to show the trajectories of the slowest, fastest, and average rounds as they zero on 200 yards, is it possible for any of these rounds to have a maximum height of only six inches above the line of sight, as shown in the graph? Ballistics calculators show .22LR rounds zeroed at 200 yards in the velocity range allegedly in question will have an apogee (maximum height above the line of sight) closer to 19 - 20.5 inches.
Further, if the zero distance is 200 yards, the greatest distance shown in the graph would appear to be at least 300 yards. At that distance, .22LR rounds with an MV in the range in question would drop 67 to 71 inches.
Does the chart shown in the video (reproduced above) have anything to do with shooting .22LR at 200 yards?
_________________________________
There remains also the question of whether a tuner that will shrink groups at 50 yards will be able to shrink groups at all distances without any adjustments? Is such a thing possible?
A last question at this point is what is meant by the improvements of accuracy claimed in the video? These are important because there can be little doubt that they are the salient feature of this tuner and would be the purpose of most shooters in getting one.
For example, according to the video, with "good ammunition you can expect from 30 to 45 percent better accuracy over not using a tuner." How is this 30 to 45 percent improvement measured? Is it 30 to 45 percent smaller groups? That would mean shrinking 1 MOA groups to .6 to .7 MOA. Is this at 50 yards? 100? 200? A 30 to 45 percent shrinkage of groups with "good ammunition" would be a remarkable achievement at any distance.
The claim for ammo that's less than "good" is broad with Yannick telling viewers "you can get 15 to 65 percent increase in accuracy." In other words, from a little bit of improvement to something that's quite significant. It's a promise that can't fail to deliver.
In general, for both good and not-as-good ammo, how much testing was done to support the claims for accuracy? How reproducible are these results?
These are questions anyone considering a tuner should consider. They can be especially important for shooters who shoot at different distances. There can be little doubt that shooters will wish to consider anything that offers improvement on .22LR accuracy, especially when it comes to long range accuracy improvement because .22LR accuracy grows worse as distance increases.
Hi guys,
I'm Yanick from the video. There is a lot of really valid questions asked here, so I'll give you all my answers. First of all (if you haven't remarked yet) I'm french canadian so maybe some of the things I've said are not as clear in english as it is in my french video. That being said, here it is:
1-The drop graph: Really sorry for the deception, but it's not a drop graph from my data. I used it only to get a visual support of a "drop chart" to show what I was talking about. So don't try to get stuff from it, it won't fit. The drop calculation were made with JBM ballistic with the BC claimed by the company (0.150 if I remember) and with velocities out of a LabRadar, for 5 shots, using only the ES (fastest and slowest) to get what would be a theorical vertical spread. I did this test only to see if a tuner setting at a X distance would affect negativly the accuracy at other distances. My main purpose for 22lr is PRS style match where you have to shoot differents distances, so it was the only manners of this part. What would be interesting to do is to made more test at different distances in controled environment to see if there is different setting for different distances and at wich point they get an influance.
I repeat, the objective at the beginning of this last test was to see if the tuner work for a distance, and if you get a negative impact for other distances with a "fixed" setting. I got as result a positive impact. Note that I'm not saying the best tuning setting at 50 will be the best tunning setting at 200 ( I haven't tested this) but at least you still get a positive result from a 50m setting to a 200m distance. ( I hope it's clear wht I'm trying to say here)
2- The improvement claimed in the video. Well it's quite simple math from the data collected during the week-end testing. We have shot at least 500 rounds from different brands, some more than other depending on the results we got. We have tried on top tier ammo (Eley Match, Eley Tenex, Lapua Center-X, Lapua X-ACT, Lapua Midas+) and some cheaper ammo (SK Std+, Sk Biathlon, Eley Sport, Eley Force) if I remember correcly. So as the test went, for the cheap ammo we found some went from 2inch (all at 50m) to 0.5inch and other from 2 inch to 1.5inch at their best. From thoses that got the best results we did the same test 3 times to see if the same tuner setting got the same accuracy gain. As you said, it's important to get a repetivity or it's probably just luck.
From the good ammo, usually the got better groups at the beginning, we saw less gain in % but we got the best overall group performance. We were abble to get must (if not all of them) going lowed than 0.5inch at 50m wich I wasn't expecting that much. It's also where I choose my competition ammo (Eley Match) wich with the tuner I can get consistently 0,3inch group at 50m and 100m. For those who have been in CRPS and NRS last year can relate this.
All of the numbers I claimed in the video are based on the results we got and calculated direcly from the database sheet. If you do more test, or testing only one ammunition, you might get other numbers but I really don't think I'm fooling people with putting in word all the date I got from my testings. From what I've heard around people using it, they also got relativly same results so I'm confident with thoses tests.
Also, I still have my database somewhere (that I've already shared with people asking already) and the targets used for thoses tests, let me get some pictures of them. I was thinking of putting all of it in the video but had the feeling it was maybe annoying to watch just numbers in an excel. Let me find it in my other computer and I'll post them in a couple of minutes
Finally, tests were conduct mustly on my CZ455 wich is the one we collect the most of the data, and with a RPRR. What I'm wondering the most since I've made my tests and video, is the impact of customs 22lr and their heavy barrel. I'm pretty sure they get less impacted by the standard tuner. I know Paul have made a heavyer one but I haven't seen real testing of it on heavy barrel. Would be a future test I guess.
Last edited:
Allright ok, took me a while to understand how to host a picture and show it here. Here is a printscreen of the first part of the test, giving ammo information (Left, with claim stuff then what I got), average group size using tuner (in the middle) and stats (right).
Thank you for the information, Yanick. I apologize for misspelling your name in my previous posts.
If I understand the table of the testing data, you shot ten five-shot groups at 50 meters with the Eley Force, Tenex, Lapua X-Act, Midas +, and Center X. Either eight or nine groups were shot with the other ammos. The eight group sizes for the Eley Match were .70, .46, .33, .30, .30, .22, .33, and .37 inches.
Two of the ammos have a second set of five-shot groups, including a further ten with the Eley Match. The second set of ten group sizes are .45, .46, .43, .34, .43, .23, .32, .39, .37, and .65 inches. A total of 18 five-shot groups were shot with the Eley Match.
Is this correct?
Were all the groups shot with the Eley Match as well as the other ammo and groups shown shot with the tuner?
In the last column shown on the testing chart, the heading is "% best". What does this represent?
If I understand the table of the testing data, you shot ten five-shot groups at 50 meters with the Eley Force, Tenex, Lapua X-Act, Midas +, and Center X. Either eight or nine groups were shot with the other ammos. The eight group sizes for the Eley Match were .70, .46, .33, .30, .30, .22, .33, and .37 inches.
Two of the ammos have a second set of five-shot groups, including a further ten with the Eley Match. The second set of ten group sizes are .45, .46, .43, .34, .43, .23, .32, .39, .37, and .65 inches. A total of 18 five-shot groups were shot with the Eley Match.
Is this correct?
Were all the groups shot with the Eley Match as well as the other ammo and groups shown shot with the tuner?
In the last column shown on the testing chart, the heading is "% best". What does this represent?
Thank you for the information, Yanick. I apologize for misspelling your name in my previous posts.
If I understand the table of the testing data, you shot ten five-shot groups at 50 meters with the Eley Force, Tenex, Lapua X-Act, Midas +, and Center X. Either eight or nine groups were shot with the other ammos. The eight group sizes for the Eley Match were .70, .46, .33, .30, .30, .22, .33, and .37 inches.
Two of the ammos have a second set of five-shot groups, including a further ten with the Eley Match. The second set of ten group sizes are .45, .46, .43, .34, .43, .23, .32, .39, .37, and .65 inches. A total of 18 five-shot groups were shot with the Eley Match.
Is this correct?
Were all the groups shot with the Eley Match as well as the other ammo and groups shown shot with the tuner?
In the last column shown on the testing chart, the heading is "% best". What does this represent?
Yup you read it correcly.
Yes all thoses numbers are from the tuner Database only. I have an other file (name poids) that were test of the same ammunition but without tuner. They came from a previous test where I tried to dertermine if selecting ammunition by overall weight of 22lr cartrige will help getting better groups. So I compare group size from the weight test to the best group size obtainged by the tuner to get this controversal % gain.
Here are my results from last session.
Yes, those are the settings. Tuna Can was removed for chrono, so if you see a note in the pictures w/ bayo it means the magnetospeed was on. If you see a note with a T followed by a number on it, that means the Tuna Can was mounted, and the number indicates the position starting from approx 1 rotation from all the way in towards the receiver, progressing out towards the nuzzle in 0.10 increments. 10 increments/revolution of the Tuna Can body.
In my previous post, the T 0.2 setting resulted in the smallest group for the Eley Match. T 0.3 seemed to work well for the SK Rifle Match and the Lapua Center-X.
My methodology is to simply go and shoot 5 round groups every 0.1 increment for 1-3 revolutions until I find a promising node, as indicated by reduced group size. So in this case I seem to have found one early as it appears 0.2 -0.3 seem to have smaller group sizes depending on the ammo.
So in the test above, I am starting to verify by seeing if the previous results are repeatable and also reducing the increment size to 0.05. I want to confirm the presence of a node for the particular ammunition as well as how wide the node is. As you can see in the case of the Lapua Center-X, the T 0.2 value resulted in a relatively small group and I haven't seen the group open up on the lower tuner values, so I'm going to go back and test until the groups increase in size.
I'm also looking for the quality of the groups i.e. no horizontal or vertical stringing.
Also, once I'm more certain of the middle of the setting spread, I will go back and test in various conditions and shoot about 5 x 5 round groups per setting and a couple of 10 round groups to confirm the small groups are not anomalies.
I prefer to test at 50 yards in order to reduce environmental effects.
Yes, those are the settings. Tuna Can was removed for chrono, so if you see a note in the pictures w/ bayo it means the magnetospeed was on. If you see a note with a T followed by a number on it, that means the Tuna Can was mounted, and the number indicates the position starting from approx 1 rotation from all the way in towards the receiver, progressing out towards the nuzzle in 0.10 increments. 10 increments/revolution of the Tuna Can body.
In my previous post, the T 0.2 setting resulted in the smallest group for the Eley Match. T 0.3 seemed to work well for the SK Rifle Match and the Lapua Center-X.
My methodology is to simply go and shoot 5 round groups every 0.1 increment for 1-3 revolutions until I find a promising node, as indicated by reduced group size. So in this case I seem to have found one early as it appears 0.2 -0.3 seem to have smaller group sizes depending on the ammo.
So in the test above, I am starting to verify by seeing if the previous results are repeatable and also reducing the increment size to 0.05. I want to confirm the presence of a node for the particular ammunition as well as how wide the node is. As you can see in the case of the Lapua Center-X, the T 0.2 value resulted in a relatively small group and I haven't seen the group open up on the lower tuner values, so I'm going to go back and test until the groups increase in size.
I'm also looking for the quality of the groups i.e. no horizontal or vertical stringing.
Also, once I'm more certain of the middle of the setting spread, I will go back and test in various conditions and shoot about 5 x 5 round groups per setting and a couple of 10 round groups to confirm the small groups are not anomalies.
I prefer to test at 50 yards in order to reduce environmental effects.
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation. I hope the OP doesn't mind the diversion.
It can be a challenge to find a tuner setting that gives consistent and verifiable results. Results that seem good one day may not hold well the next. Rifle barrels will have several apparent "sweet spots" for the tuner, but one is usually more consistent and reliable than others.
Keeping in mind that the performance of ammo can vary by lot, have you established a firm baseline of performance without the tuner for each variety of ammo against which the results with the tuner can be compared?
The decision to test the tuner at 50 yards to reduce environmental effects is a good one. With .22LR performance, any inconsistencies or unanticipated variation in wind, ammo, rifle, and shooting gets magnified as distance increases. It becomes difficult to distinguish changes resulting from tuner performance from changes caused by other factors.
Agreed, I found with my CZ 455 it was a lot more difficult to test and achieve repeatable results. So far the Bergara seems to be a bit easier, but things are still in the early stages.
Regarding baseline performance, I did my initial lot testing without tuner and prior to chronographing. Based on previous experience, my reasoning was that if the gun didn't like the ammo without the tuner, and if the SD/ES numbers weren't good, it would be a waste of time to try to tune that ammo.
A few notes about the following target. This was shot during earlier testing, so no Tuna Can was attached. The circles are 0.5" diameter (the reason the circles are smaller on my other posts was due to a printing error on my part). That lot of CCI SV was looking pretty good until I shot a few more groups with it, then I ran out of that specific lot. I only had 20 rounds of the Lapua Center-X on hand, and the first group was shot with the bayo on. Unfortunately only 2 shots registered so the chrono results should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, I was shooting 10 rd groups here as opposed to the 5 rd groups I normally shoot when tuning.
I'm not using the same lot of Center-X shown in the previous 2 posts as I'm showing here, as there were no case lots available of this lot.
I was in a bit of a rush to get testing completed because of case lot availability and the fact that I had my first match of the season coming up this weekend, since cancelled. Now that I have a bit more time, I'll baseline the new lot of Center-X and the SK RM. I'm also curious to see if the gun is performing better as it breaks in. There were burrs in the leade but I will make a separate post about those in the Bergara B-14 R thread.
Last edited:
Here's a subsequent target with the SK RM without the tuner.
Circles are 1" in diameter, centres are 0.5". The extra shots at the bottom are courtesy of a fellow club member that needed to be reminded of target etiquette.
Circles are 1" in diameter, centres are 0.5". The extra shots at the bottom are courtesy of a fellow club member that needed to be reminded of target etiquette.
Last edited:
